I was struck recently by the similarity between investigative journalism and a forensic engineer investigating the standard of practice existing when a structure was designed and constructed.  Also the similarity in the relief felt by both the journalists and the forensic engineer when the investigations are complete.

This occurred to me last Saturday when I read the report in the Globe and Mail about the Globe’s exhaustive, 18 month investigation of the Ford family. (Ref. 1)  I was also checking and reviewing guidelines on the weekend for researching the standard of care existing at the time a failed structure was originally designed and constructed.  This is a forensic engineering method of investigation.

The Globe reported how carefully and thoroughly they carried out their investigations – as they must do, and the efforts to which they went to corroborate their findings.  I can imagine the reporters being sent out “just one more time” to do one more interview, to follow up more lead, to get one more corroboration, and how relieved they were when the results of their investigation were finally published.  “Phew, let’s get onto something else now”

It’s not too much different when a forensic engineer must identify the standard of practice guiding the design and construction engineers for the structure that failed some years after it was built.  Or the structure where a person had an accident years later.

We interview architects, professional engineers and specifiers practicing in the area at the time to determine the standards they follow.  We also identify guidelines and codes existing then and the sources of these, and assess how representative the sources are of the industry.

If there is wide variance in what we find, we speak with more architects, professional engineers and specifiers, identify more guidelines and codes, and assess more sources until we feel satisfied we know what the average is. (Ref. 2, 3, and 4)

Sometimes it takes a lot of e-mails and telephone calls before we get satisfactory corroboration and know the average practice.  I had a Eureka..!! moment three days ago when a source of industry guidelines in Canada in a matter I was investigating was confirmed considerably as widely followed.  Until then I was getting a good understanding of practice in the industry at the time but the ‘average’ wasn’t clear.  Needless to say, I was relieved to see a light at the end of the tunnel like the journalists must have been relieved to see the results of their investigation finally published.

References

1. The Globe and Mail, Saturday, May 25, 2013
2. Association of Soil and Foundation Engineering (ASFE), Expert: A guide to forensic engineering and service as an expert witness, 1985
3. Ratay, Robert T., Forensic structural engineering handbook, Chap. 7, Standard of Care, McGraw Hill, 2000
4. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Lewis, Gary L, ed., Guidelines for forensic engineering practice, 2003